COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
RE:
ROMA A. MARCUS aka ROMA NELSON (Petitioner/Respondent) v. CALVIN BARRINGTON MARCUS AND RACHEL MARCUS (Respondents/Appellants)
BEFORE:
DOHERTY, BORINS and SHARPE JJ.A.
COUNSEL:
B. Kenwell
for Calvin Marcus
Roma Marcus
appearing in person
HEARD & ENDORSED:
January 18, 2005
On appeal from the decision of Justice N. Backhouse of the Superior Court of Justice dated May 16, 2003.
A P P E A L B O O K E N D O R S E M E N T
1Counsel raises two specific objections to the trial judge’s determination. First, he argues that the trial judge should have used a 5% commission rate rather than a 6% commission rate in calculating the notional value of the matrimonial home. We cannot agree that real estate commission rates are a matter of judicial notice and we see no error in the rate selected by the trial judge.
2The trial judge’s disposition of the vehicle was fair and reasonable in the circumstances of the case. We would not interfere with the trial judge’s disposition.
3The third ground of appeal argued by counsel is a more global challenge to the trial judge’s finding and cannot succeed in light of our disposition of the specific arguments made by counsel.
4The appeal is dismissed.
5The respondent is entitled to her disbursements and the employment costs associated with today’s attendance. We fix those costs at $600.00.
